Talk:Battle of Berezina

From Tarle
This is an excerpt from Yevgeny Tarle's Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, 1812.Whoever is enthusiastic, may incorporate. mikka (t) 06:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Who won the battle?
I do not believe the Berezina battle should be listed as a "decisive Russian victory". The Russian successes at Berezina were limited; they were anything but decisive.

Consider:

1. The French first outmanuevered Chichagov, then built pontoon bridges across the river. This manuever frustrated Chicagov's object of preventing a French passage of the river.

2. The French moved a substantial portion of their combat force across the river (to the western bank), in spite of Russian attempts to prevent this from happening.

3. The French repelled Chichagov's attempt to disperse them once they crossed the river (on the western bank); Chichagov suffers heavy losses.

4. On the eastern bank of the river, Wittgenstein was at first too timid to attack the French rear guard in earnest.

5. When Wittgenstein finally attacked, he did force the surrender of Parteneaux's division, and he did bombard the French bridges, inflicting heavy losses on the French rear guard. By then, however, Napoleon had succeeded in moving his main force across the river (to the west).

6. Even though French losses were heinous, most of their losses were stragglers. The Russians, for their efforts, suffered very heavy casualties themselves. These losses immobilized Chicagov's and Wittgenstein's forces in the wake of the battle.

7. There was no Russian pursuit of the French army once it resumed its retreat on the western bank.

Overall, I would say this battle had mixed results. The Russians could claim some kind of victory, perhaps, but certainly it was nothing decisive.

Kenmore (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berezina took place November 26-29, 1812
But lower: Berezina 27-28 November 1812 Xx236 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The result needs to be changed -- the Russians did not really win this battle
The Battle of the Berezina was not really a Russian victory, let alone a "decisive" victory, as the article previously stated. Basically, the French outfought and outmanuevered Chicagov's troops on the west bank and forced their way across the river. On the east bank, the French received the worst of the combat against Wittgenstein's troops, but even here the French fought something of a successful rear guard action.

True, the French suffered horrendous losses as their bridges were being shelled toward the end of the engagement, but this does not change the fact that Napoleon successfully led the bulk of his combat forces across the river...a feat accomplished by dint of arms at the expense of the Russians.

Noteworthy also is the unusually large casualties suffered by the Russians: 13,000 to 20,000.

It would be more realistic to say that the battle had a mixed outcome: the Russians retained the field and inflicted heavy losses on Napoleon, but were themselves worsted when they attempted to stop the Grande Armee's retreat.

Kenmore (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)\
 * Russian sources give smaller figures Russian losses: 6,000 to 15,000. 93.74.76.29 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are the only numbers for Russian casualties taken from a single French source??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.108.227 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added number casualties from Russian sources. 93.74.76.29 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe whoever rewrote this article should just translate the French version, because that one is more unbiased than the English version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.108.227 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Sloppiness -- I smell a Russian
There are a number of glaring grammatical errors in the article; the most noticeable ones are the omissions of commas in spliced sentences.

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are need for the battle of Berezina. The listed coordinates in the article must be wrong, because the battle took place during the crossing of Napoleons army over the river. The position given by the coordinates are not by the river but by the road leading to Barysow... —79.161.198.43 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved the point nearer to Studzionka, where the brigdes were. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Retreat of the French army
I've removed the phrase "Retreat of the French army" from the battle Result section in the infobox several times in the past, but I see it keeps being added back. I think that this is the result of a slight misapprehension regarding the context of the battle. The retreat of the French army after the battle of Berezina was not the result of the battle, it was rather the consequence of the French successful forcing of the passage and also Napoleon's main strategic aim before the battle. I looked to cover this aspect by adding to the succint phrase "French strategic victory" the additional explanation "despite heavy losses, the French force the Berezina crossing". However, adding the phrase "retreat of the French army" is not only redundant (it's been explained that they forced the passage, so they had to be on the move and not static) but it is also misleading, since it seems to suggest an element of Russian victory, while there actually was none at all. Holding the battlefield at Berezina after being brushed aside by Napoleon was devoid of any military significance. For the Russians, Berezina was not only a huge missed opportunity to completely destroy the enemy, but it was quite a catastrophic setback, since it meant that Napoleon and his army were free to escape back to their bases. Granted, these were only the debris of the Grande Armée, but, crucially they included great many officers and army cadres, who were vital and impossible to replace in a short time. Had these officers and cadres not been able to escape, they would't have been able to train the new recruits the next year and Napoleon would not have had an army with which to mount the campaign of 1813. Given the sorry state of the Russian army in late 1812 and early 1813, this was of utmost importance. I hope that putting things into context will help indicate that it is unnecessary and misleading to add such phrases as "retreat of the French army" into the Result section. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But the French army has really receded, isn't it? To deny that French have retreated - means to mislead.
 * Also it is possible to tell that retreat of the Russian army after the battle of Borodino was not result of the battle, it was rather a consequence of the main strategic plan of Kutuzov. But battle of Borodino is considered "the French tactical victory". Similarly, battle at Berezina was the Russian tactical victory (retreat of the French army with heavy losses).
 * Undoubtedly, addition of the phrase "despite heavy losses, the French force the Berezina crossing", is unnecessary and redundant in the Result section. (Олег) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.76.29 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That is because in the two battles the French had completely different objectives. At Borodino, their goal was to destroy Kutuzov's army and clear the road to Moscow, while Kutuzov's objective was to halt the retreat and give battle, hoping that he would be able to inflict crippling losses to the Grande Armee and thus stop its advance towards Moscow. Berezina is another story. Napoleon's goal was to retreat, to escape the Russian's encirclement, which he succeeded, even though he sustained heavy losses. Andynomite (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Napoleon's goal was to retreat" - I am glad that you agree that Napoleon has receded. Hence, result of the battle - "the French retreat". (Олег) 93.74.76.29 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The French did retreat, but that was not the result of the battle. Borodino is a different matter, it is only Soviet propaganda that had Kutuzov planning a strategic retreat; more recent, solid research (see Zamoyski and Lieven) shows beyond any doubt that Kutuzov still intended to fight after Borodino but had to bow before the reality that another battle would mean the end of the army. Berezina was not a tactical victory and the XIXth century Russian source that you're quoting there (6000 Russian losses) is in clear contradiction with pretty much every source I've seen on the battle, so I tend to think that it is a fringe POV. I also note that you've messed with the text of the article, adding information to the battle result without referencing it or adding information to text which has already been referenced to an author. This is not cricket and please refrain from doing it again.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to speak here about "the Soviet propaganda", it is all the western propaganda. Kutuzov's plans have been described by historians even before occurrence of Soviet Union. I understand that you very much like France and Napoleon, but be objective: Napoleon has lost this battle and has been compelled to recede, having thrown guns and a transport. It is the fact. (Олег) 93.74.76.29 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The French retreat was a cause of the battle, not its result. Napoleon would have retreated anyway, even if the clash at Berezina hadn't ocurred. Therefore, the French retreat cannot be considered a result of the battle. Andynomite (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The French victory" also cannot be considered a result of the battle. Because the winner does not recede, leaving guns, wagons and thousands of prisoners.
 * "Napoleon would have retreated anyway" - But why Napoleon had to retreat? Because he was driven away by Russians. Russian army pressed on French and forced it to recede. The winner comes, loser recedes. It is clear. (Олег) 93.74.76.29 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (Олег):Firstly, I think that you need to turn your reasoning around. Napoleon was already defeated, he had lost the Russian campaign. He was retreating in order to preserve his remaining (invaluable) military assets: the remains of the Imperial Guard and the numerous officers who had survived. He needed to retreat closer to his bases (initial objective was Lithuania) in order to reestablish his communications with his bases, allow his reinforcements to arrive more easiliy and gradually rebuild his army. This was his main strategic objective. The main Russian strategic objective was to prevent him from escaping from Russia with his remaining army. They fought at Berezina, Napoleon pushed aside Wittgenstein and Chichagov. This came at a high cost - high casualties, a large number of stragglers captured and he lost all his baggages and a significant number of guns - but he was able to pursue his main strategic goal. Russian losses in combatants were roughly equal. I hope that explanation helps.
 * Secondly, I see that you keep reverting my edits and the problem is that you aren't giving any sources for your claim. You will note that I've sourced my claim by explaining that specialists such as Dominic Lieven, Adam Zamoyski or Alain Pigeard claim that Napoleon won strategically at Berezina. What about your claim: are there any mainstream authors who say that Berezina was a Russian tactical victory?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have a great deal of difficulty in classifying the battle as a French retreat, they had been retreating in the same direction since leaving Moscow and forced the fording in order to continue the march. Everyone needs to remember that the politics of both the French and the Russians, demanded liberties be taken with the truth.  Try reviewing the Battle of Borodino to get a gist of what was going on at the time.  The closer that the historian was to the actual event the more the truth gets distorted.  Unfortunately there are lots of bad histories on the French Invasion of Russia, I know I have read more than a few.  I would suggest that instead of French retreat, that you use the Term French continued retreat, as this is much closer to the truth and should make everyone happy I think.  In the end, every single battle simply adds to the French losses in a campaign of attrition that the French were losing 2 to 1.Tirronan (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any meaningful argument here in favor of classifying this battle as a French victory. Given the disastrous state of the French army after the battle -- its effective collapse, Napoleon leaving the remnants of the army, etc. -- the thesis about a French victory is highly questionable. Nonetheless, with some stretch of imagination the battle could be considered a strategic victory for Napoleon. After all, he did escape the encirclement of his army and his own capture, which likely would have ended the Napoleonic Wars. Tactically, though, it was a Russian victory: the massive casualties incapacitated the French army as a fighting force in this campaign. After the battle, over the next couple of weeks that remained for them to be in the Russian territory, most of the French forces quickly degenerated into an ill-coordinated mob that was never more able to offer any coherent resistance to the Russians. Interested readers may consult the well-researched Russian-language Wikipedia page on the post-Berezina events: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%82_%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0Brildanz1 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Both sides lost heavily during this battle and military losses were sensibly equal. On the one hand, the Russians failed to hold the ground and the French were able to push through, which is what they always intended. Nevertheless, Napoleon had to leave behind great many stragglers and his baggage train. So, tactically things seem to be pretty balanced. Strategically however, there was a significant aspect that indicated a French victory: the Russians failed to exploit a great opportunity to destroy the remnants of the Grande Armee. The cavalry of the Grande Armee was already destroyed beyond repair, so Berezina wouldn't have made much of a difference but the main strength of an army was its infantry. Tens of thousands of French infantrymen perished in 1812, with several hundreds of thousand wounded of prisoner, but in the end they could be partially replaced thanks to the huge population of France and allies, which greatly surpassed that of Russia. However, with the Grand Armee at Berezina were thousands of officers who had survived the Russian campaign. These men were essential and took years and years to train. Had they been lost at Berezina, Napoleon could not hope to continue the war in 1813. It was thus crucial for the Russians to prevent the remnants of the Grande Armee and what remained of the Imperial Guard from crossing the river. As things stood, Napoleon brushed aside the Russian forces and marched back to Poland. True, his losses were horrendous, but, by the beginning of 1813 he was able to build a new army around the surviving officers of the 1812 Grande Armee. This army was much more powerful that the Russian and Prussian armies combined. After Berezina, the Russians began losing their strategic edge and things culminated at Bautzen, where Napoleon dealt an almost fatal blow to his enemies. The lack of cavalry, Marshal Ney's insanely uninspired manoeuvres, Napoleon's own declining health, his burned-out military genius, combined with the devastating effect produced by the death of Duroc made sure that the Russian and Prussian army would live to fight another day after Bautzen. This is hindsight, of course. But the stakes at Berezina were clear: destroy the Grande Armee and win the war in 1812, while Russia still had the advantage. The Russians failed, so that it why Berezina has to be classified as a strategic French victory. Horrendous losses, sure, but a victory nonetheless. Military historians that I read speak explicitly of it, so I don't see why we should choose to interpret the outcome as being more mild than it actually was.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons is that had this been pushed the way that Grant did, this would have been the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon would have been in a cage and the French army really destroyed.  All this was actually in the Russian's hands and they dropped it.  For all the casualties, most were among deserters and camp followers.  Still this was the beginning of the end for the Emperor.Tirronan (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Following your logic, Alexandru Demian, Borodino should be considered a great Russian strategic victory over Napoleon, and the Wikipedia page about the battle of Borodino should be changed accordingly. Indeed, after Borodino, the Russian army "marched" away from the battlefield in good order, preserving its cadre of well-trained officers and men, and subsequently was able to continue the campaign -- victoriously. Napoleon's longtime strategic plan of destroying the main Russian army, something he had worked for since the beginning of the invasion, thus failed. After Berezina, on the other hand, Napoleon did not "march" into Poland, as you put it. He left the remnants of his army and fled (or shall we put this tactfully, 'rushed away'?) -- a week after the battle, on December 6, accompanied by merely 200 guards. What survived from the rest of the Grand Army were separate and poorly co-ordinated detachments, part of which indeed made it back across the border into Poland -- but not as a coherent fighting force. Indeed, some of these well-trained men later joined Napoleon's newly rebuilt army, but did so on their own or as parts of small separate units. That certainly speaks to their credit, and to Napoleon's capacities as a leader, but not to the result of Berezina being a French victory. Thousands more perished in December, were captured by the Russians, deserted and never rejoined the army, etc. Effectively, there was no Grand Army after Berezina. The entire thesis about this battle being a "French strategic victory" thus hinges on one argument alone -- Napoleon's own successful escape. With all due respect to his genius, a battle after which an army falls apart within days is not a victory. Tactically, it was a Russian victory -- although indeed by far not as complete as Kutuzov or Alexander I had hoped for. What now stands in the Wikipedia box is a generous concession to Napoleon-lovers. Notably, in the French language and cultural memory, the expression "C'est la bérézina" is a synonym for "this is a complete catastrophe." Not for nothing, I presume.Brildanz1 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is actually little resemblance between Borodino and Berezina. Borodino did little to change the outcome of the 1812 campaign and in the end had little impact on the strategic situation of the two sides. It can be argued that, had Napoleon stretched his resources and pushed for another battle in the days following Borodino and/or the occupation of Moscow, he might have been able to break the core of the Russian army beyond repair. Alternatively, committing the Guard could have achieved a similar result, although historians disagree about this, with some thinking that he made the right choice by not committing this ultimate reserve. There is little case for arguing for a Russian strategic victory at Borodino and I have read a number of British, French, German and Russian authors and never came across such a statement. If it exists somewhere, it is probably a fringe POV. As I said before, the Russians did not win the 1812 campaign on the field of battle but rather by making better use of logistics and denying the enemy the type of warfare that best suited him (e.g. quick campaigns and large-scale battles). If you want to find a parallel, Brildanz1, between Berezina and another Napoleonic battle, the best one to look at is the Battle of Hanau. Both battles came after Napoleon had realised that he had lost the campaign and needed to retreat closer to his bases. During both retreats, the French army moved so quickly that it almost disintegrated and during both the Russians/Coalition had a golden opportunity to destroy the remnants of the French army. Both were strategic victories for the French because Napoleon achieved his strategic goal: retreat closer to his bases, while the Russians/Coalition failed to achieve theirs: to destroy the remnants of the French army. Capturing Napoleon was an illusion, as he would have always been able to break through any encirclement with an escort of a couple of hundred Chasseurs-a-Cheval from his Guard. With regards to the French expression that you are referring to, it derives more from the shameful debacle put up by the French and allied stragglers during and after the battle, rather by the way in which the French fought. Berezina was as much a catastrophe for the Russians. To put things simply, the Russians registered a strategic reverse at Berezina because Napoleon was able to salvage enough military assets (NCOs, officers, Guardsmen) to rebuild an army which at beginning of 1813 was more powerful than its Russian and Prussian counterparts. The Russian army, which was already in a desperate situation, was thus forced to march through devastated territory and suffered horrendously during the final days of 1812 and beginning of 1813. Amazingly, due to the superb resilience and obedience of the Russian soldier, it managed to remain cohesive but its shortcomings were quickly revealed during the first encounters with the French and allies in 1813. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the biggest problem in these battles is that the battles decided nothing. Every war college on the planet uses this campaign as the premere example of how important logistics was.  I don't think much of Kutuzov as a tactician however he was head and shoulders above Napoleon in understanding time space and logistics.  Everything Napoleon did in this campaign worsened his situation and did not improve it.  Conversely, the Russian position got stronger daily.  I struggled with this same Issue with the Borodino article.  In the end had Napoleon been soundly beaten at Borodino and retreated back on the spot, his losses would have been far less.  Anything that added to the French losses helped the Russians but to be a Russian victory they had to stop the French from retreating.  This could have and in all probablity should have been the end of the Napoleonic wars.  Kutuzov was scared of Napoleon and didn't throw everything at him when it mattered the most.  Hundreds of thoudands of lives would be lost because Napoleon could rebuild and the core he escaped with did help him rebuild.  Also many a deserter near the border got back to start anew. Ah this is Tirronan btw at work.Tirronan (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Whose victory?

 * Dear Demian, let's agree that it is too simple to say this battle results in a French victory. Only the sentence: "Since then "Bérézina" has been used in French as a synonym for "disaster." -makes this already almost impossible. Since there were far more French casualties and the French were fleeing some kind of compromis seems to be the least. Greets, Rolf1981 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * dear Rolf, believe me, I understand what you are saying. How can a man win all these battles: Smolensk, Borodino, Tarutino, Maloyaroslavets, Viazma, Krasnoi, Berezina and still emerge defeated from the campaign? It doesn't seem to make sense. Yet, it does, Napoleon won all these battles and the Russians were defeated on the field of battle every time they fought Napoleon. Yet, they won the campaign through brilliant logistics and though shrewd political victories that spelt the end of Napoleon's declining, burned-out genius. Russia just did not win the 1812 campaign on the field of battle but by more subtle means. At Berezina, the French Grande Armee should have ceased to exist. Had the Russians completed their encirclement, Napoleon would have probably escaped anyway, escorted by a few hundred horse guards, but the rest of the troops would have been killed or taken. Instead, the backbone of the army, including a few thousand officers, survived the campaign and were able to form a new army in 1813, an army that outnumbered the Russian and Prussian one by almost 2:1 at a certain moment. So, yes, Berezina was a strategic victory for the French. Very costly. Chandler literally calls it a "strategic victory". I've read perhaps a dozen books on the 1812 campaign (including the recent ones from Dominic Lieven and Adam Zamoyski) and I can provide several more sources for a strategic victory claim, if you wish. As I said, the Russian decisive victory was not won on a field of battle. Greets, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's historically incorrect. What political victories are you talking about? What "shrewd logistics"? The Russians don't get to dictate to Napoleon how he supplies his armies, unless they win battles, or at least achieve draws. Claiming that the Russians were defeated at Berezina because they didn't utterly destroy Napoleon's Army is absolutely ridiculous. Wellington didn't utterly destroy Napoleon's Army at Waterloo either. Was that a French Victory? I don't care who makes the claim, Obama once said something about 57 states, and a Congressman talked about Guam capsizing. When someone makes a ridiculous claim, it doesn't matter how smart they are - all it means is that the one following said claims can't use common sense. 71.165.41.100 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection needed
Can somebody protect this article? Somebody, (called Demian) has made it his task in life to change the outcome of this battle on different wiki-pages. Allthoug almost all pages state the factual Russian victory, he keeps changing that on the english and french page. Gr,145.18.110.36 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zamoisky and Berezina
I found the time to check one of the sources supposedly used by an anonymous user to support the claim that Berezina was a Russian victory. I've checked Zamoisky. Now, I could not find the, 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow from 1980 and it doesn't seem to exist on Amazon either. The only book with that name seems to be the one of 2004, of which I have a copy. In the 2004 book, there is actually absolutely no mention of the battle at pages 7-96, as claimed by the anonymous user. The section discussing the battle is at pages 470-480. Furthermore, this author ranks the battle as a French victory (p. 480), in line with mainstream specialised literature: "The crossing at the Berezina was, by any standards, a magnificent feat of arms. Napoleon had risen to the occasion and proved himself wothy of his reputation, extricating himself from what Clausewitz called <>. [...] But it was above all a triumph for Napoleonic France [...]". I'm now wondering what the other two sources quote might hide... Unless there is actually a 1980 book with the same title claiming a Russian victory at Berezina, I have to say that I'm at a loss here and, while I'm not one to suspect foul play quickly, the anonymous user will need to provide some rationale quickly to avoid deletion.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been no response to this serious issue in 2 weeks. Given that the first source (Zamoisky) was bogus, I am assuming that the other two are bogus too. I've read another, more recent book by general Michel Franeschi ( "Napoléon, défenseur immolé de la Paix"), where he ranks Berezina as a French victory. It is unlikely that he would change his opinion so radically over a few years, so the book with Weider is unlikely to be a viable source. I am assuming that the third is not a serious source either. Given all this and given that there's a history to push the Russian victory label on this battle with no serious, mainstream sources, I am assuming that this is yet another attempt of this kind. I am thus restoring the result to what it was before the edits by the anonymous IP.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Logical order.
Somebody (more specific a certain Alexandru Demian) has made it his task in life to change and adjust this page in a more pro French way. I saw in the 'View History' section that he keeps undoing versions from different users, so that the outcome looks more positive for the French army. He even (quite childish) changes the logical order in the result, as if it was a clear French victory and only a minor Russian one. Almost all other wiki-pages state a Russian victory, so I would say that he already got a strange compromise by allowing him to add that the French partly won as well. (This last thing is although rather doubtful). Could somebody use his/her authority to protect this page? Greetings, 145.18.226.156 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sir - if you had a closer look (and knew anything about Napoleonic history), you would see that the result is referenced to reputable, neutral authors of international Stature. As is all my work here on wikipedia. This article, as well as its versions on other wikis, needs major rewriting. If you wish to see how an article about a major Napoleonic battle should look like, please have a look at my article about the Battle of Wagram, for example. That said, I have no objection regarding the result order (which I did not alter myself, rather removed a very dubious website). I do find the Russian tactical victory claim bizzare and will have to have a look into Clausewitz to check it. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had another look and there is the Russian website again . I had erased it because the main page of the site seems to be about the modern Russian army.. Where on the website is the info about the result of the battle of Berezina? What work is it based on? Which historians? Why is the result refrenced to a site rather than a book?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * dear demian, did you really check the site, since there is an enormeous load of information on Berezina and the whole campagne; http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/history/more.htm?id=10965719@cmsArticle

It feels or even seems like you re only bluffing, and that makes it very doubtfull what sources you erased before. The whole meaning of wiki is to make neutral articles, not distributie your personal view (a French one in this case). Greetings, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.236.177 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not defending a pro-French POV, nor is it my intention to be daft. I work with credible sources here and I never use websites, which are usually garbage... I am only interested in accuracy and in combatting myths.

Napoleon lost the Russian campaign weeks before Berezina and his defeat in the 1812 campaign is undisputed. However, the Russian victory at Berezina seems to be stuff of Soviet-era propaganda, rather than serious research. Modern Russian scholars seem to have a different take on the matter, perhaps because the Party censorship has not had its share of cuts and edits, huh?... Btw, I am curious to know what leads you to claim that the British historian David Chandler holds a pro-French view?

Back to our discussion. On the earlier website you had inserted, there was no reference to Berezina - this is why I had erased it. There seems to be an article in Russian now - I'll have a look via google translate.

I do have several questions but maybe you already have the answer:


 * who wrote the article at ?
 * is it properly sourced? I couldn't find footnotes in the article, which already raises questions.
 * does the article actually call Berezina a tactical victory or is it interpretation? Where does it say so?
 * the tactical victory claim is also sourced to Clausewitz's "Campaign of 1812" (seems to be an online translation in Russian). I have a copy of the book in English but, despite my efforts, I could not find the part where Clausewitz says that Berezina was a Russian tactical victory. Could you provide a print edition, and page number, rather than a website?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)